Study Documents Impact of Four Minn. Choice Plans

Four of Minnesota's innovative school-choice plans are encouraging
students to return to school and raising their aspirations for the
future, according to a new study.

But the survey by the state education department and the University
of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs also
found that most students participating in the programs had learned
about them from friends, rather than through official channels. The
report recommends that state officials rethink the way they advertise
choice programs so that they can reach more students.

The report is the first comprehensive survey of students in
Minnesota's choice programs. It does not include, however, the state's
best-known choice option, "open enrollment," under which students ages
5-18 can switch school districts.

That program will be included in a report on choice that is being
prepared by state and federal education officials for release later
this year.

The study released last month was based on a stratified random
sample of 13,000 students who participated in four choice programs
during the 1989-90 school year.

The programs were the:

Postsecondary Enrollment Op4tions program, which enables high-school
juniors and seniors to take college courses for free.

Area Learning Centers and High-School Graduation Incentives
programs, which make it possible for students ages 12 and older who are
not succeeding in school to enroll in alternative programs outside
their home districts.

Alternative Schools program, which permits youngsters who have left
or are falling behind in school to attend private, nonsectarian schools
that operate under contract with a school district.

The study found that a significant percentage of students were using
these programs to return to school after having dropped out, including
34 percent of the students in Area Learning Centers, 33 percent of
those in the High-School Graduation Incentives programs, and 16 percent
of those in private alternative schools.

The majority of students offered academic reasons for their
participation in such programs, including "to help me stay in school,"
"to get more individualized or personalized learning," and, for
Postsecondary Options students, "to take courses not available in my
school."

In addition, students who participat8ed in such programs reported
increased educational aspirations, greater satisfaction with school,
and greater success in school after transferring.

The proportion of students who reported that they expected to
graduate from high school and attend college or a vocational-training
program, for example, at least doubled after they entered their new
schools. In the case of private alternative schools, it increased from
6.2 percent to 41.2 percent.

Similarly, the percentage of students saying they were "satisfied"
or "very satisfied" with their schools increased substantially. And
students in all but the Postsecondary Options program reported much
more success in school after transferring.

In the Postsecondary Options program, 31 percent of those surveyed
said they were more successful after transferring, 57.5 percent said
they were about as successful as they were before, and 7 percent said
there were more successful before.

Since most of those students were already doing well in school, the
study suggests, such findings could be construed as positive.

It advocates that the state continue to expand its array of
public-school options, including the creation of "schools within
schools." And it notes that some of the programs already have waiting
lists.

The study also found that choice programs were attracting a
significant number of students from low-income families and those where
English is not spoken at home.

Joe Nathan, a senior fellow at the Humphrey Institute and one of the
authors of the study, said the findings should be "very encouraging to
a number of public-school educators who have created distinctive
schools over the last few years."

"These are people who are often viewed very suspiciously by some
colleagues in traditional schools," he noted. "And this report seems to
provide considerable justification for doing things differently. ... It
does help to affirm something some of us have said for 20 years, which
is4there's no one best kind of school for all students or all
teachers."

At the national level, he added, the study could be used by people
who want to give students more options within the public schools.

Minnesota officials also plan to use the study to devise better ways
to inform students and families about choice programs.

Students in all three of the programs designed for those who had not
succeeded in regular schools said they had learned about them primarily
from friends. In the Postsecondary Options program, the main source of
information was guidance counselors, followed closely by friends.

The report recommends using young people to inform others about
choice, creating parent-information centers and computer programs to
help students select among schools, printing information in many
languages, and providing more information through area businesses,
day-care centers, and other social-service agencies.

The study was supported by a grant from the Chicago-based Joyce
Foundation. Copies are available for $7.50 each from the Betty
Radcliffe Center for School Change, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute for
Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Ave. South,
Minneapolis, Minn. 55455; (612) 625-1834.

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.